AMERICAN GENERAL: "Carter" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Texas-----------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Anna Dickson and Jamie Carter,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.American General Life Insurance Company, Case No. B-195107, wasremoved from the 60th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Co.,Texas to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas(Beaumont). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00465-MAC to the proceeding.

American General Life Insurance Company operates an insurancecompany in Texas.

APPLE INC: Judge Ends Class Suit, Saying Plaintiffs Were Puppets----------------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that with harshwords for the lead plaintiffs lawyer, a federal judge tossed classclaims against Apple Inc. over its AppleCare warranty plans.

In an order denying class certification, U.S. District JudgeWilliam Orrick III in the Northern District of California tookissue not only with the merits of the claims, but also with whathe described as the "dubious manner" in which the litigationcommenced and the "manifestly incompetent manner in which it hasbeen conducted."

Texas solo Renee Kennedy had claimed Apple misled iPhone customersby representing that its AppleCare plan provided for new phones toreplace broken ones. The suit alleged that Apple instead providedsome customers with used phones or phones that contained usedparts, while packaging them in unmarked boxes designed to make theproducts appear new.

According to Orrick's order, one of the original named plaintiffsin the case was Kennedy's paralegal when the suit was filed in2013. Another plaintiff also worked for her.

Both used Kennedy's money to buy Apple warranty plans five daysbefore filing the lawsuit, according to Orrick's order. And perKennedy's instructions, the paralegal plaintiff brought audiorecorders into the Apple store to document her experience the dayshe bought the plan.

While those plaintiffs dropped out of the litigation in January2015, their prior involvement "continues to taint this case,"Orrick wrote. He also faulted Kennedy for a "failure to complywith basic federal and local rules" and standing orders.

Reached by phone, Kennedy declined to comment. Co-counsel JohnParker of Cutter Law in Sacramento, who joined the case in July,said his team is disappointed. "I do not think that there was anyissue as to the adequacy of class counsel in this case," he added.

The order, which rejects the bid for class certification withprejudice, is a win for Apple's counsel at Morrison & Foerster,who had challenged the suit's legitimacy in part based on tiesbetween Kennedy and the original named plaintiffs.

Looking beyond the suit's inception, Orrick wrote that "none of[the plaintiff's] theories of liability support classcertification."

Fabrienne English claimed that she received "refurbished" iPhonesto replace her broken phones, and that both began freezing soonafter she brought them home. But an AppleCare director whoanalyzed company records said both phones were new, and Englishhas provided no evidence to the contrary, Orrick wrote.

BENQ CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for April 14-------------------------------------------------------Hon. Richard Seeborg for the Northern District of California, SanFrancisco, on Dec. 15, issued a revised order granting settlementclass certification and preliminary approval of the class actionsettlement with defendants in In re Optical Disk Drive ProductsAntitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2143 (N.D. Cal.):

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Courtcertifies the settlement class -- for purposes of this Motion only-- defined as:

"All individuals and entities who, during the period from January1, 2004 until at least January 1, 2010 (the "Class Period")purchased one or more Optical Disk Drives in the United Statesdirectly from the Defendants, their subsidiaries, or theiraffiliates. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and theirparents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all governmental entities.As used herein the term "Optical Disc Drive" includes (a) a drivesold by a Defendant or its subsidiary or affiliate as a separateunit that is to be inserted into, or incorporated in, anelectronic device; (b) a drive sold by a Defendant or itssubsidiary or affiliate as a separate unit that is to be attachedto an electronic device through an external interface such as aUniversal Serial Bus connection; and (c) an internal drive sold asa component of a laptop or desktop computer by a Defendant or itssubsidiary or affiliate."

The Court appoints the law firm of Saveri & Saveri, Inc. to serveas Class Counsel for the settlement class. Gilardi & Co. LLCserves as claims administrator.

Each settlement class member shall have the right to be excludedfrom the settlement class by mailing a request for exclusion tothe claims administrator no later than February 22, 2016.

No later than March 7, 2016, Class Counsel shall file with theCourt a list of all persons or entities who have timely requestedexclusion from the settlement class as provided in the settlementagreements.

Each settlement class member who has not timely excluded itselffrom the settlements shall have the right to object to (1) thesettlements, and/or (2) the plan of allocation by filing writtenobjections with the Court no later than February 22, 2016, copiesof which shall be served on all counsel listed in the classnotice. Failure to timely file and serve written objectionswill preclude a class member from objecting to any or all of thesettlements.

Each settlement class member shall have the right to appear at theFairness Hearing by filing a Notice of Intention to Appear nolater than February 22, 2016, copies of which shall be served onall counsel listed in the class notice.

The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on April 14, 2016 at1:30 p.m.

All briefs, memoranda and papers in support of final approval ofthe settlements shall be filed no later March 24, 2016.

On or before February 18, 2016, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs-- DPPs -- must file their motion for attorney's fees, expenses,and incentive awards. Class members shall have until March 10,2016 to file any written objections to the Fee Motion. A hearingon the Fee Motion shall be held on April 14, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. 23.Each class member shall have until March 7, 2016 to submit aclaim, either by mailing a completed claim form to Plaintiffs'claims administrator or by filling out an online claim form on theclass website. Claims submitted in connection with the HLDS,Panasonic, and NEC settlements will automatically be included inthis second round of claim submission.

Class Counsel shall have until March 24, 2016 to file a responseto any objections to the Fee Motion as well as a report on claimssubmitted.

CARNEGIE PARK: Sued Over Lease Renewal and Protection Policies--------------------------------------------------------------Joseph Quenqua and "Jane Does #1-100", on their own behalf, and onbehalf of those similarly situated v. Carnegie Park Associates,L.P., Carnegie Park Tower, LLC, The Related Companies, L.P., 184Kent Owner, LLC and "John Does #1-100", Case No. 514588/2015 (N.Y.Super. Ct., December 1, 2015) seeks damages, injunctive relief andother appropriate relief on behalf of the Class members who havebeen evicted or will be evicted from the premises they reside inand who were not given lease renewals and protection fromunconscionable rent increases.

The Defendants are all real estate developers who converted or areconverting a building or a group of buildings in New York Cityfrom residential rental status to cooperative or condominiumownership.

CHICAGO: Law Students Aid Victims of Decades-Old Police Torture---------------------------------------------------------------Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports thattwo Chicago law schools have played key roles in obtaining justicefor those tortured during the tenure of former Chicago policecommander Jon Burge, the latest of which is a $5.5 million paymentby the city on Jan. 4 to 57 people.

The recent payment follows more than two decades of investigationsand lawsuits over the conduct of Burge from 1972 to 1991. So far,the city has paid more than $100 million to victims.

Students and professors at Chicago-Kent College of Law and LoyolaUniversity Chicago School of Law have helped dozens of victims whowere tortured into confessions by Burge's cabal of detectives -- agroup that became known as "The Midnight Crew."

Chicago-Kent created a reparations clinic after the Chicago CityCouncil in May appointed professor Daniel Coyne as an independentthird party to evaluate the claims of those who said they weretortured by police under Burge and determine if they were eligiblefor settlements under the $5.5 million the city had set aside.

Coyne and six Chicago-Kent students reviewed 65 torture claims anddetermined that 22 were eligible for reparations under theordinance.

"The people with credible claims deserved the acknowledgement thatthey had been terribly wronged and to know that someone out therecares," said Ian Barnes, a May graduate of Chicago-Kent who nowworks as a public defender. He volunteered for the reparationsclinic last summer.

Loyola dean David Yellen has been reviewing Burge-related tortureclaims made by prison inmates to determine whether they should begiven a postconviction review. About a dozen Loyola law studentshave assisted Yellen in reviewing more than 500 letters and filesover nearly two years. Yellen, who was appointed in 2014 by alocal judge as a special master to identify torture victims, saidhe expects to conclude his review in about a month. Thus far, heand his students have identified 15 inmates with credible tortureclaims whose cases will be handled pro bono by Chicago-area lawfirms.

"It's a different version of the same lesson that the country as awhole is learning today," Yellen said of the highly publicizedBurge scandal. "Having effective, good policing is incrediblyimportant, but there needs to be appropriate oversight anddiscipline. For far too long police departments were essentiallyunwilling to regulate the officers on the streets."

Burge oversaw detective squads in two police areas beginning inthe early 1970s, and allegations of torture -- predominately bypoor, black suspects -- emerged early on. But Burge faced littleofficial scrutiny until the late eighties. He was acquitted ofpolice brutality in 1989, but was fired in 1993 when a reviewboard determined that he had tortured suspects.

A special prosecutor documented more than 100 incidents oftorture, but the statute of limitations lapsed and Burge neverfaced criminal charges for the torture. (He served three years inprison for perjury.)

"People were looking the other way because of the criminal justicesystem," Coyne said. "You've got judges having to decide on claimsof torture, but the things people were describing were so horrificthat no one could believe it was really happening in a civilsociety."

The city council in 2014 approved the ordinance that establishedthe reparations fund and psychological counseling and job trainingfor Burge's victims and their families. The ordinance also createda memorial to them.

Yellen said the Loyola students assisting his review have foundthe experience to be "interesting, depressing and rewarding." Theyhave been looking for inmates who confessed to crimes during theBurge era and who previously made torture claims, but who have notyet received a postconviction review with counsel. Because thestatue of limitations has lapsed, Burge's victims can no longerbring civil suits.

"The unanswered question is: 'How much similar stuff was beingdone by other cops in Chicago?' Yellen said. "We'll never know."

CHIP-TECH: Capacitor Price-Fixing Class Action Narrowed-------------------------------------------------------Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News, reports that afederal judge dumped non-California law claims from an antitrustclass action accusing major tech firms of conspiring to fix theprices of capacitors, a common component in most electronicdevices.

The consolidated class action stems in part from a complaint filedby lead plaintiff Chip-Tech in July 2014 against a slew ofcorporations including Panasonic, Hiatchi, Samsung, NEC, ROHM andothers.

In his Dec. 30 ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato foundindirect buyers of capacitors lacked standing to sue over claimsarising from antitrust and consumer protection laws in 21 statesother than California.

The indirect buyers claimed one of their named plaintiffs, theliquidating trustee of the now-bankrupt Circuit City Stores,received deliveries of price-fixed capacitors in 21 states andtherefore established standing to sue.

But Donato found the capacitors were actually purchased inVirginia and receiving deliveries of price-fixed goods is notenough to establish Article III standing.

The judge ruled that two individual indirect buyer plaintiffsresiding in other states failed to establish standing as wellbecause there was no evidence that they bought a productcontaining a price-fixed capacitor.

"Merely living in a state, even one where price-fixing conductoccurred, is not a basis for standing if the plaintiff did notactually pay a supracompetitive price there for the accusedproduct," Donato wrote in his 19-page ruling. "Standing does notarise simply because illegality is in the air."

The judge also refused to grant Hitachi Chemical Co. America'smotion to dismiss indirect buyer claims, finding the plaintiffsadequately alleged the company was established "to effectuate andachieve the cartel's aims and purposes" for the benefit of itsJapanese parent firm.

Specifically, the plaintiffs obtained evidence through discoverythat showed a Hitachi corporate officer represented the interestsof the "entire corporate family" in meetings with companies takingpart in the conspiracy, according to the ruling.

However, the judge did dismiss one defendant, American ShizukiCorporation, from the direct buyers' class action, findingallegations against the American subsidiary were "too paltry."American Shuziki's motion to dismiss was granted with leave forplaintiffs to amend.

The indirect buyers were given until Jan. 27 to file an amendedcomplaint to fix standing issues with their non-California statelaw claims against the defendants.

A hearing on class certification motions has been scheduled forJuly 20, 2016.

Panasonic and other technology firms are also fighting similarantitrust class actions for their alleged roles in conspiracies tofix the prices of lithium ion batteries and electronic resistors.

CITIGROUP: Judge Accepts Settlement of $1.1-Bil. for Bond Losses----------------------------------------------------------------Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that aManhattan Commercial Division judge approved a $1.125 billionsettlement between Citigroup and investors who lost $15 billion bybuying mortgage-backed bonds issued by Citigroup prior to the 2008financial crisis.

Justice Marcy Friedman declared the settlement, negotiated by 18institutional investors who held 30 percent of the bondinvestments, to be "reasonable."

The settlement in In the Matter of the Application of U.S. BankNational Association, 653902/2014, also provides that Gibbs &Bruns, the Houston, Texas-based law firm that represented theinvestors, will receive an additional $41 million from Citigroup.

Citigroup and the investors employed a little-utilized proceedingunder CPLR Article 7701 that allows a court to affirm a trust'sdecision to compromise claims made on behalf of the trust'sbeneficiaries -- in this case, the bondholders.

The Appellate Division, First Department, approved the procedure'sapplication to residential mortgage-backed securities cases in2014 in Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago,127 AD3d 120, also known as the "Countrywide decision."

The settlement was reached in April 2014 after eight months ofnegotiations, Friedman said. "Despite an extensive, court-orderednotice program, no investor or other interested person has filedan objection or other papers in opposition to the petition," shenoted.

The investors agreed to waive all claims against Citigroup.Friedman determined that there was no evidence that "the trusteesacted in their self-interest or in the interests of Citigroup orof the institutional investors, rather than in the interests ofthe investors generally."

The trusts were created by Citigroup as a vehicle for sellingmortgage-backed securities to nonpublic "private label" investors.The trustees were represented by Morgan Lewis & Bockius partnerJames Moore.

In a notice filed in Faulkner County Circuit Court, attorneysrepresenting the city said they intend to take the issue to theArkansas Supreme Court.

Attorney Justin Eichmann, one of the lawyers representing thecity, said that the lawsuit's plaintiffs argue that "the pay gridconstituted a contract" and that "oral promises ... were made thatestablished the contract."

"We do not think the nature of [an oral contract] lends itself toclass certification because it's so different how each personlearned of or might have heard about that contract," Eichmannsaid.

Attorney Tom Thrash, who represents the plaintiffs, said theappeal will only delay the recovery of unpaid wages by police andfirefighters.

"We do not believe the appeal has any merit," Thrash said.

Eichmann said the appeal was not a delay tactic and that it wouldbe best to resolve the class-action issue now.

In December, Circuit Judge Troy Braswell granted class-actionstatus to the police and firefighters but dismissed an allegationagainst the city of illegal exaction by unlawfully using moneyfrom a 0.25 percent sales tax approved in 2001 for purposes otherthan the reason plaintiffs say it was intended - to improveemployee salaries.

The class action applies to more than 100 firefighters and to morethan 130 police officers employed by the city between Dec. 2,2001, and Dec. 31, 2012, Thrash has said. Claims against the citywould total an estimated $1.5 million if the lawsuit succeeds, hesaid.

Filed in 2012 by police officer Richard Shumate Jr. andfirefighter Damon Reed, the lawsuit originally was on behalf ofall city employees, although later it was narrowed to police andfirefighters because of class-action requirements.

Thrash has argued that the firefighters and officers received stepraises for a time after the sales tax's approval but didn't getthem in 2010, 2011 and 2012 -- a period when the city encounteredsevere financial problems.

According to the appeal notice, filed in circuit court, the citycan appeal a class-action ruling directly from circuit court tothe Arkansas Supreme Court under the Arkansas Rules of CivilProcedure.

The city has 90 days to file the appeal unless the high courtgrants an extension.

CSX INTERMODAL: "Ledesma" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California---------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit captioned Nora Ledesma, Manuel Ledesma,individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. and Does 1through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-02015-00033879-CU-OE-CTL, wasremoved from the Superior Court, County of San Diego, CentralDivision to the U.S. District Court Southern District ofCalifornia (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.3:15-cv-02672-AJB-BLM to the proceeding.

FACEBOOK INC: $20 Million Privacy Settlement Clears 9th Cir.------------------------------------------------------------Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a $20 million classaction settlement that resolved privacy claims against FacebookInc. over a feature that posted users names and images along withadvertising promotions.

The so-called "sponsored stories" settlement, approved in 2013 byU.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District ofCalifornia, allotted $15 to each claimant and reserved roughly $2million for cy pres recipients.

Objectors had hoped the case would be a vehicle to limit the useof charitable donations as part of class action settlements. ButCircuit Judges William Fletcher and Marsha Berzon sanctioned thedeal's cy pres component, finding no fault in Seeborg's conclusionthat the nonprofits selected to receive donations were suitableand worked to advance causes closely tied to the case.

The objectors, led by Massachusetts lawyer John Pentz, landedtheir argument with Judge Carlos Bea, who authored a seven-pagedissent calling the cy pres award arbitrary. Bea said the districtcourt could have increased the payout to claimants instead ofproviding "a huge windfall" to the designated nonprofits.

"I would not undo the entire agreement, he wrote. "Instead I wouldvacate the district court's decision and remand with instructionsto set a per-claimant distribution that would exhaust the netsettlement fund."

Bea also wrote that he would have granted legal fees to objectorSam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive EnterpriseInstitute, who successfully petitioned to reduce the fees awardedto class counsel. Seeborg should have considered objector Kazman'sbilling records, Bea asserted, before dismissing his fee requestas de minimis.

Facebook was represented by attorneys from Cooley and Munger,Tolles & Olson in the appellate litigation. Counsel referredrequests for comment to Facebook, which issued a one-sentenceresponse: "We are pleased with the court's ruling."

In 2011, plaintiffs challenged Facebook's Sponsored Storiesfeature for publicizing users' "likes" of advertisers without anycompensation or method to opt out.

Ruling on a set of objections raised by attorneys for underageFacebook users, the panel concluded that the settlement "does notclearly authorize continued violations of" privacy laws byallowing the site to continue using kids' names and images inadvertising.

Under the 2013 agreement, Facebook made changes to its terms andconditions that, despite the elimination of Sponsored Stories in2014, still allow the company to use kids' actions on the socialnetwork in advertising unless a parent objects.

"It is not clear whether Facebook's use of minors' names andlikenesses in Sponsored Stories violated California law," thepanel wrote. "It is also not clear whether the settlement at issue-- which provides more protection for minors from Facebook'sadvertising practices than existed before -- violates state law.The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving thesettlement in the face of this uncertainty."

Scott Michaelman, an attorney with the Public Citizen LitigationGroup in Washington, D.C., who represents parents of teenage classmembers, said his group was dismayed.

The maker of fitness trackers premiered a smartwatch, the Blaze.Shortly after, the company's shares "FIT" tumbled, ending the daydown 18%.

Now, Fitbit is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that itsheart rate monitoring technology -- which it calls PurePulse -- isinaccurate, as first reported by The Verge.

Such technology is found in its Charge HR and Surge devices, aswell as the newly announced Blaze. Essentially, Fitbit uses LEDlights to monitor blood flow through a user's wrist and, by usingalgorithms, can determine a user's heart rate. Similar technologyis used in the Apple Watch, along with several more competingsmartwatches and fitness trackers.

According to the suit, three different plaintiffs said they boughtFitbit devices based off the company's advertised promise that itaccurately tracked heart rates. Fitbit's advertising materialsoften contain phrases such as "every beat counts" and "know yourheart" in relation to the heart monitoring technology.

One participant in the suit had a trainer manually count her heartrate during a workout. Her trainer recorded a heart rate of 160beats per minute (bpm) while her Fitbit Charge HR indicated herheart rate was only 82 beats per minute, according to the filing.Two other plaintiffs are mentioned in the suit, each citingsimilar experiences with a Fitbit PurePulse-equipped product.

The suit goes on to say that a cardiologist, who used anelectrocardiogram machine to compare results, found Fitbit's heartrate sensor consistently reported inaccurate results. With a heartrate of 110 bpm or higher, the suit states the Fitbit devicesoften failed to record a heart rate at all. When a heart rate wascaptured, the reading was off by an average of 24.34 bpm, the suitsaid.

When contacted by Fortune, Fitbit provided the following comment:

"We do not believe this case has merit. Fitbit stands behind ourheart rate technology and strongly disagrees with the statementsmade in the complaint and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit.Fitbit is committed to making the best clip and wrist-basedactivity trackers on the market. Our team has performed andcontinues to perform internal studies to validate our products'performance.

PurePulse provides better overall heart rate tracking than cardiomachines at the gym, as it tracks your heart rate continuously --even while you're not at the gym or working out. But it's alsoimportant to note that Fitbit trackers are designed to providemeaningful data to our users to help them reach their health andfitness goals, and are not intended to be scientific or medicaldevices."

Gelato Fresco is recalling Gelato Fresco brand Toasted HazelnutDairy Ice from the marketplace because it may contain almond whichis not declared on the label. People with an allergy to almondshould not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have the recalled product in your home.Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the storewhere they were purchased.

If you have an allergy to almond, do not consume the recalledproduct as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

Certain buses may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle SafetyStandard 220 - Rollover Protection. Roof crush testing, requiredby the standard, was not correctly performed by the manufacturer,which could result in the vehicles not meeting roof strengthrequirements of the standard. This could increase the risk ofinjury to vehicle occupants in a rollover. Correction: To bedetermined.

Glen Echo Fine Foods is recalling Inverloch Cheddar Cheeseimported from Scotland from the marketplace due to possibleListeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consumethe recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look orsmell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can includevomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headacheand neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people withweakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Althoughinfected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-likesymptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infectionof the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian FoodInspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

The food recall warning issued on November 20, 2015 has beenupdated to include additional distribution information. Thisadditional information was identified during the Canadian FoodInspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Glen Echo Fine Foods is recalling Inverloch Cheddar Cheeseimported from Scotland from the marketplace due to possibleListeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consumethe recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look orsmell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can includevomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headacheand neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people withweakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Althoughinfected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-likesymptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infectionof the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian FoodInspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

On certain buses, the 2 point passenger seat belts installed onthe passenger seats could become frayed from rubbing against theinboard seat bracket edge. A frayed seat belt may fail to properlyrestrain the occupant in the event of a crash which would increasethe risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replaceany frayed seat belts. A protective cover will also be added tothe seat belts.

On certain vehicles equipped with manual transmissions, themounting bolts securing the rear differential may not have beenproperly fastened due to the suspension's rear crossmember anddifferential. Over time, the bolt(s) may loosen, and could causethe driveshaft to separate from the differential, which wouldresult in excessive noise and loss of motive power, increasing therisk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.Correction: Dealers will inspect, and affect repairs as necessary.

On certain vehicles equipped with Navistar engines, theaccelerator pedal position sensor could move on its mountingbracket if the pedal is depressed with excessive force. If thesensor stator were to move out of position, it could change thesensor signal output, resulting in a high idle. On vehiclesequipped with manual transmissions, if the clutch were to bedepressed during operation, the engine could rise to governed RPMsresulting in difficulty selecting gears while shifting. In thecondition of a loaded vehicle going down a long grade, theinability to down shift could cause difficulty in maintaining orreducing vehicle speed with just the service brakes, which couldincrease the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage toproperty. Correction: Dealers will recalibrate the engineElectronic Control Module (ECM) to eliminate the high idlecondition.

On certain travel trailers, the certification label on the towinghitch that indicates the maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Rating(GVWR) and Tongue Weight for the trailer was omitted. This couldlead to vehicle overloading, potentially causing damage to trailerand affecting vehicle handling, which could increase the risk of acrash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Labelswill be mailed to owners of affected vehicles, along withinstructions for proper installation. Alternatively, owners canvisit a Jayco dealer to have the new certification label applied.

Leica Biosystems recently became aware that some detection kitsmay have been subject to a manufacturing error which could resultin inadequate staining. If the product is used according to theinstructions for use with the adequate controls, the end userwould be able to identify the test has not stained correctly.

Loblaw Companies Ltd. is recalling PC brand Triangoli PumpkinFilled Egg Pasta from the marketplace because it may containcashews which are not declared on the label. People with anallergy to cashews should not consume the recalled productdescribed below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalledproducts should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

If you have an allergy to cashews, do not consume the recalledproduct as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with theconsumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian FoodInspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safetyinvestigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. Ifother high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify thepublic through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

NEW YORK: Found to Have Negligently Destroyed Suit Docs-------------------------------------------------------Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that NewYork City has been sanctioned for not preserving documents in acivil rights class action alleging police improperly set quotasfor the number of summonses each officer must issue.

Southern District Judge Robert Sweet said the New York City PoliceDepartment was "grossly negligent" in allowing documents to bedestroyed knowing they could be relevant to the case.

He also faulted a police order on the routine destruction ofdocuments, including summonses -- an order that "includedinformation on how to utilize an industrial shredding truck todestroy documents en masse."

The case alleges hundreds of thousands of people have been issuedsummonses without probable cause in violation of the First,Fourth, Fifth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffsaccuse officers of issuing summonses solely to hit the number setby their superiors.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Sharif Stinson, was 19 years oldwhen the suit was brought in 2010. He said he was stopped,detained and searched without probable cause on New Year's Eve2009 as he left his aunt's apartment building on East 179thStreet. He was given a disorderly conduct summons that wasultimately dismissed.

A trial in Stinson v. City of New York, 10 Civ. 4228, is expectedto start sometime this year. Sweet said the jury will beinstructed that "the absence of documentary evidence does not inthis case establish the absence of a summons quota policy."

Sweet, in his opinion on the consequences for spoliation ofevidence, said the city's litigation hold, which was issued inAugust 2013, was "late and ineffective."

The plaintiffs filed suit in 2010, but Sweet noted that summonsquotas were a major issue as far back as Jan. 31, 2008, when thecomplaint was filed in another case, Floyd v. City of New York --the central piece of litigation over police stop-and-friskpractices.

The city settled Floyd, and a remedial order remedyingunconstitutional practices is now being implemented.

Because Floyd "contained significant quota-related allegations,"Sweet said the duty to preserve arose on the date Floyd was filed.The city had argued that it was unreasonable to require thatpolice documents be preserved indefinitely because the NYPD is sooften involved in litigation. It contended that a broad duty topreserve would, in effect, amount to a "perpetual litigationhold."

"The statement is inarguable," Sweet said. "But it does notjustify a three-year failure to issue a litigation hold in thisaction, or a failure to preserve documents while the Floyd case,in which the issue of an alleged quota was 'hotly contested'. . .remained pending."

Sweet disagreed with the NYPD's complaint that the plaintiffs weredemanding the city preserve every relevant document in the handsof the department.

"While the plaintiffs have made overbroad discovery requestsbefore, the reasonableness of one party's demands does notdetermine the scope of the other party's obligation to preservedocuments," he said.

The judge faulted policies that provided for the destruction ofevidence, including the destruction of bureau chief memos afterthree years, monthly performance reports after four years andcriminal court summonses after four years.

The same was true of electronically stored information such asemail and text, as well as the destruction of materials relatingto police CompStat meetings, where crime and performance-relateddata are exchanged and policy is set, and officer activityreports.

The judge found few responsive documents were produced on emailsfrom former Commissioner Raymond Kelly, former Chief of DepartmentJoseph Esposito and other officials -- an indication the emailswere deleted.

The judge's instruction to the jury, which serves as the city'ssanction, is called a "permissive inference."

The sanction fell well short of the set of 16 mandatory adverseinferences that plaintiffs lawyers wanted to put before the jury,including one where the court would instruct the jury that therewas a summons quota in place and that Kelly, Esposito and othersenior department officials implemented it.

Sweet said to adopt the plaintiffs' sanction would be to "dictatesuccess on seriously contested issues" in a case where theplaintiffs "face a steep evidentiary burden to establish theexistence of an official policy, pattern, or practice" underMonell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York,436 U.S. 658 (1978).

Nevertheless, the sanction of a permissive inference is a bigadvantage for the plaintiffs either in settlement talks or attrial.

While Sweet found the city was grossly negligent in destroyingevidence, "there is no basis to conclude that the city acted inbad faith." Rather, he said, the city's conduct showed "a broadfailure to take its preservation obligations seriously rather thanany attempt to lie or mislead."

The judge noted that the parties exchanged "inflammatory language"on whether the existence of the emails established that seniorofficers committed perjury. He found that allegation"unsupported."

Law Department spokesman Nicholas Paolucci issued a statementsaying, "While the court suggests that there may have beensystemic failures in preserving electronic and othercommunications, Judge Sweet categorically dismisses any suggestionthat either former commissioner Kelly or former chief Espositotestified falsely as to the matters in question."

"Plaintiffs are pleased to see that the federal court has insuredthat defendants will face severe consequences for failing to taketheir legal obligations seriously, especially in light of the factthat this case concerns the constitutional rights of hundreds ofthousands of individuals," Sutton said. "The plaintiffs hope thatthe court's decision will help ensure that relevant evidence is nolonger destroyed in future litigation with the NYPD."

OLD FASHIONED: "McNamee" Class Suit Removed to E. D. Missouri-------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit entitled Laura McNamee, individually andon behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Old FashionedKitchen, Inc., Case No. 1522-CC00732, was removed from the CircuitCourt, City of St. Louis to the U.S. District CourtEastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01766-RWS to the proceeding.

The Old Fashioned Kitchen, Inc. is a manufacturer of frozenblintzes, dessert crepes, pancakes, pierogies for the food retailmarket.

RAILROAD SIGNAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Garza" Suit Says-------------------------------------------------------------Israel Garza, On Behalf of Himself and All Others SimilarlySituated v. Railroad Signal International, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00510 (S.D. Tex., December 1, 2015) is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40hours in a workweek.

SPARTAN ENERGY: Faces "Lopez" Suit Seeking Overtime Compensation----------------------------------------------------------------Adolfo Lopez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated, v. Spartan Energy Services, LLC, and Spartan FlowControl Services, LLC, Case 5:15-cv-01053 (W.D.Tex., December 1,2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to himindividually and on behalf of all purported current and formerfield workers who performed work for Defendants associated withoil and gas wells throughout the United States during the three-year period before the date the court authorizes notice in thiscase.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Boston Atty Sues on Behalf of Excluded Drivers-----------------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that theplaintiffs' lawyer who's forged a place as Uber's legal nemesislaunched a fresh attack seeking employee protections for dozens ofdrivers who won't be included in her huge class action.

Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan sued Uber TechnologiesInc. on behalf of drivers left out of O'Connor v. Uber becausethey drove through intermediary limo companies or used corporatenames.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District ofCalifornia found their situations could be varied enough topreclude class treatment.

"We're not going to leave them out in the cold," Liss-Riordansaid. "We represent these individuals and we want to be sure toprotect their rights."

In an email, an Uber spokeswoman pointed out: "The federaldistrict court already rejected plaintiff's request to certify aclass of these groups, whose circumstances vary widely and whohave control over how they use the app."

The suit filed in San Francisco Superior Court names 78plaintiffs, and Liss-Riordan said she expects to add more asdrivers continue to contact her.

Uber has estimated about 10,000 drivers were excluded from theO'Connor litigation, compared to the 150,000 in the class thatChen certified.

Ironically, the man whose name is attached to the case, leadplaintiff Douglas O'Connor, was among those excluded because hedrove for Uber through a third-party company. He's named as aplaintiff in the new suit.

The O'Connor case is set for a June trial in the Northern Districtof California. Liss-Riordan will argue her clients are Uberemployees and must receive employee benefits, reimbursement fordriving expenses, and compensation for tips she claims the companyillegally withheld.

Uber maintains its drivers are independent contractors becausethey have the freedom to control factors such as the hours andschedules they work and the routes they drive. Chen certified aclass of California drivers in September, and expanded the classin December. Uber is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcherpartner Theodore Boutrous Jr.

Liss-Riordan argues the plaintiffs in her new case also are Uberemployees, even though they drove through intermediaries.For now Liss-Riordan is litigating the excluded drivers' claimsindividually, as they may not be eligible for class treatmentunder a new arbitration agreement Uber rolled out in December.

"This is the type of result you see," Liss-Riordan said, referringto her ponderous suit, "when there is a high degree of interest ina case and employees aren't allowed to pursue claims as a classaction."

VAALCO ENERGY: 'Everyone Does It' Defense Rejected in Class Action------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that corporate legalbattles are often decided on nuanced readings of dense statutes,but one recent ruling that could expose scores of U.S. companiesto shareholder lawsuits turned partly on a much simpler defense:everybody is doing it.

That failed to sway a Delaware judge, who ruled last December thatoil producer Vaalco Energy Inc had violated the state's widelyused corporate law with a charter provision that barred theremoval of directors without cause.

Those are some of the nearly 200 companies with similar charterprovisions that Vaalco cited during its defense against ashareholder class action in Delaware's Court of Chancery.

"Just as 'all the other kids are doing it' wasn't a good argumentfor your mother," said Vice Chancellor Travis Laster at a hearingon Dec. 21, "the idea that 175 other companies might have wackyprovisions isn't a good argument for validating your provision."

Vaalco's legal problems began when a group of activist investorssaid they intended to replace four of Vaalco's seven directorsafter the company's stock began to tumble in late 2014.

Vaalco argued that its charter and bylaw provisions only allowedinvestors to remove members of its board for cause.

Several shareholders filed class actions in December alleging thecharter was invalid under Delaware law, which allows for theremoval of directors without cause.

Delaware law does make exceptions, including for companies with aclassified board, or one in which members are elected fordiffering terms. Vaalco dropped the classified board structure in2009, but never changed its charter or bylaws.

Laster seemed unsympathetic about the impact his ruling might haveon the other companies.

"To the extent that this upsets expectations at some give-or-take175 public companies is just a consequence of people not readingthe statute," he said, according to a transcript.

After Laster's ruling, Vaalco agreed to changes to its board.

A client memo from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz attorney WilliamSavitt, who defends companies, said shareholder attorneys maydemand a board comply with the Vaalco ruling and then seek a feeif a change is made.

Shareholder attorney Mark Lebovitch told Laster during a hearingthat a quick review of the list of companies with allegedlyinvalid charter provisions showed many were out of business orwere actually in compliance with Delaware law.

Jason Halper, a corporate attorney with Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe said he doubted the Vaalco ruling would inspire a floodof lawsuits against the companies with similar charters, partlybecause it was hard to see how shareholders were harmed.

"It's not a live issue without a proxy fight," he said.

VOLKSWAGEN: HR 1927 Affects Vehicle Owners' Cases-------------------------------------------------Martine Powers and Lauren Gardner, writing for Politico, reportthat as lawyers prepare to take Volkswagen to court on behalf ofangry diesel vehicle owners, the House is slated to vote this weekon a bill (H.R. 1927) to overhaul how injured parties are groupedinto "classes" for class-action lawsuits. The legislation wouldrequire attorneys to show that each proposed class memberexperienced "the same type and scope of injury" as everyone elsein the group. It's a bill that has gained heightened attentionthis week, with a Fiscal Times story (Headline: "Congress Wants toDo Something Absolutely Crazy") calling it "a bailout forVolkswagen." Lauren spoke with attorney Andre Mura, who representsVW owners involved in class-action litigation; he said the lawwould make it more difficult for his clients to seek damages.

Dividing up the class: Per a House Judiciary Committee aide, thelegislation would require judges to put "more injured" people intoa separate class from those "less injured," but leave it to thediscretion of the court to determine whether the class-actionparticipants suffered injuries that differed in type and magnitudefrom others. From Mura: "It seems to be suggesting that there hasto be some sort of heightened sameness requirement." The bill isvague on what "same" means, but in the case of Volkswagen, Murasaid, "if that means the same car, the same mileage, the samevehicle number, that would simply make it much more difficult tobring one class-action suit against an entity like Volkswagen,"even though the company admitted to installing software across itsdiesel fleet to cheat emissions standards. Lawmakers discussed thebill last summer: "People who are injured deserve to have theirown class actions, in which they present their uniquely powerfulcases, and get the larger recoveries they deserve," committeeChairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said in June before a markup.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: Out in Las Vegas, Volkswagen CEO HerbertDiess' appearance at the International Consumer Electronics Showcould hardly have come at a more awkward time. Despite forecaststhat Diess would ignore the scandal, he bit the bullet withinminutes of taking the stage at the Cosmopolitan, offering aplainspoken mea culpa. "Of course, the current issue with thediesel engines is certainly nothing to be proud of," Diess said."We disappointed our customers and the American people, for whichI am truly sorry."

Diess added that VW is doing "everything we can to make thingsright," with owners as well as authorities, but he noted some ofthe trouble stems from the fact that the set of regulations in theU.S. is "different compared to Europe." The CEO said the companyis "working hard to present an acceptable package to the U.S.authorities," adding he's "optimistic we will gain theirapproval."

A CHANGE OF CONVERSATION: Diess' CES speech quickly veered back tothe real reason why he was on stage: to unveil new vehicle modelscoming down the pipeline. The headliner was an electric minivancalled "the BUDD-e" (Get it? Like "buddy"!) that's a throwback tothe iconic Volkswagen Microbus of the '60s and '70s. The vehicle'spremiere tied in perfectly with the company's apparent new PRtack: Whip up VW nostalgia, and remind people of the good ol' dayswhen Volkswagens stood for peace, love, and happiness . . and notthe bitter taste of those icky defeat devices. (Watching the on-stage video of sepia-toned VW minibuses towing bikini-clad hippieson beach excursions, MT was reminded of the Mad Men adage: "If youdon't like what's being said, change the conversation.")

But bad news won't go away: One thing Diess didn't mention: therecent decline in sales of Volkswagen vehicles in the UnitedStates. The news wasn't much of a shock: Overall, VW car salesdecreased by 5 percent in 2015. VW halted its sale of dieselvehicles in September, and in the ensuing months the company tooka big hit. As Lauren reports, December 2015 sales saw a 9.11percent decline from the year before. (That was still a bit betterthan November 2015, which was down 25 percent from November 2014.)Those numbers aren't good, and investors know it: Volkswagen stockis down 6.6 percent since the market opened.

VW's declining sales were a particularly sharp blow in what turnedout to be a banner year for the American auto industry: More carswere sold in the United States in 2015 than ever before, and itwas a 13 percent jump from 2014. Even GM, whose ignition switchdefects have been linked with scores of deaths, saw sales rise by5 percent. Much of the reason behind the soaring figures: 2015'slow gas prices, making driving a more attractive option forconsumers. But the carmakers' successes could also be seen as acoup for the Obama administration, buoying the notion that thePresident "saved Detroit" with his automotive bailout.

Across the pond: From Brussels, POLITICO Europe's Anca Gurzureports that the European Parliament is preparing to decide on themakeup of the new committee tasked with digging into the VWscandal. Anca explains that "the EP voted overwhelmingly inDecember in favor of setting up the 45-member committee, which ismeant to look at the role played by the European Commission andnational authorities in Volkswagen's emissions cheating scandal.But most political groups have proposed more MEPs to be part ofthe committee than their allocated number of seats, aparliamentary source said. Political groups also need to decide onthe chairman, the vice-chairs and the rapporteur."

But there's always a bright side: Despite the defeat devicescandal, Volkswagen sales are climbing in Mexico, Bloombergreports. In that same month with the 25 percent drop-off in theU.S. market, VW sales in Mexico jumped by 13 percent. Mexico'sdealers association told Bloomberg: "For generations, families atone time or another have owned a Volkswagen and have a firstimpression of the brand . . . They say 'It's never conked out onme, it's a car I can trust.' The scandal doesn't have the sameimpact it's had in other markets."

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Franchisees Skittish About Suing Auto Company------------------------------------------------------------Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports thatVolkswagen AG has been hit by lawsuits over its emissions cheatingdebacle from just about every angle. But one group has so far beenconspicuously unwilling to sue the carmaker: Volkswagen's 650franchise car dealers in the U.S. Observers say the franchisees,which received monthly goodwill payments in 2015, likely havevalid claims but may be skittish about suing the parent company --for now, at least.

Volkswagen was issued a notice of violation of the Clean Air Actby the Environmental Protection Agency back in mid-September aftera research lab in West Virginia discovered the car manufacturerwas cheating on its emissions tests. The EPA charged the carmakerwith improperly using a defeat device in its diesel vehicles thatwould evade clean air standards, an allegation the carmaker lateradmitted was true.

More than 500 class action lawsuits have been filed againstVolkswagen, mostly by consumers. Those suits have beenconsolidated in California. The U.S. Department of Justice broughta civil suit on Jan. 4, alleging violations of the CAA. Volkswagenhas also been sued by a handful of nonfranchise dealerships,including a used-car dealership in California that says it'sentitled to the same goodwill payments as franchise dealers and aChevrolet and Buick dealership in Alabama that says Volkswagen'sactions have dragged down competitor sales.

There's no doubt the scandal has hurt many of Volkswagen'sfranchise dealerships. Volkswagen announced its December new-vehicle sales in the U.S. were down by more than 9 percentcompared with the same month one year ago, while annual sales weredown close to 5 percent. For the last three months of 2015,Volkswagen provided its franchised dealers with a monthly stipendin an act of goodwill since dealers were facing stop-sales on alldiesel-engine vehicle models. There has yet to be an announcementas to whether those payments will continue for January or beyond.

Despite the dip in sales, no franchisees have sued Volkswagensince the scandal broke less than four months ago. They could bewaiting to assess the damage, says Alan Brown, the general managerfor Lewisville Volkswagen in Lewisville, Texas, and the chairmanof Volkswagen's National Dealer Council. He notes that Volkswagenreportedly submitted a proposal to the EPA in November but no timeline has been shared on when any fix could be finalized. "Oncethat becomes public, then the dealer body and Volkswagen ofAmerica will be able to start assessing what the damages are tothe customer, what the damage is to the dealer," Brown says. "Ifperformance and fuel economy are affected to a fairly large scale,then what are these vehicles worth?"

Still, Brown says this isn't a legal battle his dealer group'sgeneral counsel is entertaining. "We have no interest in suingVolkswagen," he says. "Volkswagen is our partner, and at the endof the day, I believe we're stronger together than apart." Brownacknowledges that his voice doesn't represent all of thecarmaker's U.S. dealerships.

Litigation on the part of franchised dealers might be warranted,but it would be premature, says Michael Charapp, an attorney withCharapp & Weiss in McLean, Virginia, who represents car dealers."No doubt there are grounds for a lawsuit," Charapp says. But fordealers "job No. 1 is surviving this crisis. I think they've gotto get themselves through 2016 and see where they land," he says.Leonard Bellavia, senior partner with Mineola, New York-basedBellavia, Blatt & Crossett, says dealers don't need to wait a fullyear before taking action. He's hearing from his dealer clientsthat they are frustrated and don't feel that the monthly paymentsare sufficient on a long-term basis. Should dealers decide to filesuit, they'll win, he says.

Volkswagen did not respond for comment on this article and has notpublicly announced the amount that dealers are to receive.Bellavia says his clients received, on average, about $30,000 permonth for the past few months. Payments varied based on thedealer's size and sales volume.

Bellavia says dealers are reluctant to sue their automaker becausethey fear retaliation. Bellavia has seen this reluctancefirsthand, he says. He previously sued Chrysler and Saab on behalfof dealers but those two carmakers were in bankruptcy and hadlittle to lose at the time of the litigation, so dealers were morewilling to sue, Bellavia says.

Bellavia stresses that while it is admirable Volkswagen steppedforward with the monthly payments in 2015, $30,000 per monthbarely puts a dent in what he thinks the dealers are owed. "Thesedealerships are worth millions of dollars," he says.

It remains to be seen if any Volkswagen dealerships couldultimately go out of business altogether as a result of thescandal. "I would assume we've got dealers doing well and I'massuming we've got dealers at risk," Brown says. "If a dealer isoperating correctly and doing the right things, I can't imagineVolkswagen allowing any dealer to fail at this time."

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fidler" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices-----------------------------------------------------------------Michael R. Fidler and Richard Pearlman, individually and on behalfof themselves and all others similarly situated v. VolkswagenGroup of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2015-00040190-CU-AT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., December 1, 2015) arises out of theDefendant's alleged installation of defeat devices inapproximately 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehiclesmanufactured and sold and leased in the United States since 2009,to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official emissionstesting.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hendricks" Suit Over "CleanDiesels"------------------------------------------------------------Ed Hendricks and Jody Hendricks, on Behalf of Themselves and AllOthers Similarly Situated, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD (E.D.Pa., December 1, 2015), seeks monetarydamages and other relief arising out of Defendant's allegeddeceptive scheme to violate U.S. law by falsely claiming itsdiesel vehicles "CleanDiesels" are environmentally-friendly.

Volkswagen manufactures, distributes, sells, leases and warrantsthe diesel vehicles under the Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche brandnames throughout the United States.

YAHOO INC: Judge Says Lawsuit Over Texts Can Be Class Action------------------------------------------------------------David McCabe, writing for The Hill, reports that a federal judgehas ruled that Sprint customers can pursue a class-action lawsuitagainst Yahoo over automated text messages that they believeviolated the law.

The case concerns "welcome" messages that Yahoo sent to usersafter they received a first message through Yahoo's Messengerservice. The plaintiffs in the case allege that those messagesviolate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which forbidsrobocalling and other uses of an autodialer.

Judge Manish Shah in the Northern District of Illinois said thatSprint customers who received the message between March 1, 2013and March 31, 2013 and whose phone number was not in Yahoo's userdatabase are eligible to be a part of the lawsuit. It's a defeatfor Yahoo, which opposed the certification of the class.Shah rejected many of Yahoo's arguments, including its contentionthat a class-action suit could force it to accept damagesdisproportionate to its activity.

"Certifying a class action, however, does not necessarily meandefendant will be found liable. And complaints ofdisproportionality are better taken up with Congress," Shah saidin his order.

His ruling was not a complete victory for the plaintiffs in thecase, however, since the judge declined to certify a differentclass of T-Mobile users who had also gotten the messages.

Shah said in his ruling that the proposed class could include over500,000 users.

* Gibson Dunn Class Action Group Wins String of Victories in 2015-----------------------------------------------------------------Jess Davis, writing for Law 360, reports that Gibson Dunn's classaction lawyers in 2015 racked up an impressive string of victoriesin state and federal courts, securing the dismissal of billions'worth of putative class claims across a wide breadth ofindustries, earning the firm Class Action Group of the Year statusfor the sixth time in a row.

Its lawyers also helped shepherd Uber Inc. through a series ofputative class actions brought by drivers, won the dismissal of aputative class action alleging NASDAQ and others rigged securitiesmarkets to favor high-frequency traders, and reduced by billionsof dollars the scope of price-fixing claims against egg producerswhen a district judge declined to certify massive classes ofconsumers from 21 states.

"I think the reason why clients continue to entrust us with theirmost high-stakes matters is really the results you see," ChrisChorba, a co-chair of the group, said. "Our lawyers have been ableto turn around some of the most significant lawsuits brought inrecent years, including some very high profile class actions.Results matter in this business, for better or worse. That's whyclients keep coming back to us for their most significant and highprofile matters."

In the egg price-fixing case, Gibson Dunn represented Cal-MaineFoods Inc., the nation's largest shell egg producer, in apotentially whopper-sized class action alleging a cartel of eggproducers conspired to keep supply down and thus increase the costof eggs. Facing down a sprawling putative class that could haveencompassed most American households, Gibson Dunn attacked theissue by raising for the first time questions related to therequirements for and scope of what's called the Capper-Volsteadantitrust exemption for agricultural producers.

Practice group co-chair Drew Tulumello said in settings withmultiple defendants, the Gibson Dunn practice group tries not to"just run the usual playbook," but to think about fresh, new anddifferent ways to attack a case.

"The law is always changing, the facts in each case are alwaysdifferent; there's really no reason to just go through and makethe standard moves," he said. "That's part of why our class actionteam adds a tremendous amount of value. We're always looking forhow do we find right strategy for this case, which may becompletely different from what's been done in this area before."

Tulumello said the firm essentially has its own "brain trust" oftalented lawyers who think deeply about Rule 23 issues, and whosewriting and internal webinars about wonky class action subjectshelp the practice group stay on the leading edge of class actionlitigation by marshaling the best possible arguments.

The class action group also benefits from the firm's many partnerswho work primarily in other areas of the law but who provideexpertise that can be the key to nailing down the right argument,Chorba said.

"That collaboration may be our secret sauce," he said.

In March, Gibson Dunn stopped at the gates a putative class actionclaiming Pepsi should provide medical monitoring to plaintiffs whosaid a chemical in its drinks is linked to a form of lung cancer.The judge dismissed, with prejudice, personal injury and medicalmonitoring claims and agreed with the firm that the plaintiffs didnot come close to proving the beverages they drank would haveexposed them to the chemical equivalent to the exposure in certainrodent studies that were cited by the plaintiffs.

In April, Gibson Dunn won a dismissal with prejudice of all claimsin a putative nationwide class action that alleged Yamaha MotorCorp. USA boat motors contained a defect that caused them tocorrode years after Yamaha's express warranties expired.

In June, Gibson Dunn scored an appellate victory from the D.C.Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of a $2 billion caseclaiming AIG, four other insurers and 23 defense contractorsimproperly denied workers' compensation benefits to employeesinjured while working in overseas combat zones. The firm tookprimarily responsibility for preparing a consolidated brief andpresenting oral argument on behalf of all defendants in theappellate court.

And in October, the Fifth Circuit vacated certification of a fraudclass action against Stream Energy that alleged the company wasoperating an illegal pyramid scheme. In the Stream Energy case,Gibson Dunn was brought in to try to be the "rescue squad" afterbriefing had closed in the district court, which certified a classof more than 150,000 current and former Stream salespeople.

After coming on board, the firm filed a Rule 23(f) petition andstay application with the Fifth Circuit before winning thevacation of the certification order.

"I think there was a recognition that the appeal was going to be amake-or-break or significant inflection point in the case and theyfelt very comfortable with having our team take the lead,"Tulumello said.

It's common for Gibson Dunn to be one of several high-profiledefense teams trying to knock out a class action, so the firm'slawyers sometimes have to persuade their co-counsel to buy in tonovel, off-the-beaten-path arguments before they can make thosesame arguments to a judge.

In California state court, the firm in December 2014 obtainedunanimous reversal of a $94 million judgment for ABM IndustriesInc. in a wage-and-hour class action that targeted employers thatrequire employees to carry radios and remain on call during restbreaks. Gibson Dunn's approach -- attacking the trial judge'sinterpretation of the substantive law -- debunked the plaintiff'stheory of liability and is binding on the entire plaintiff class.

A California appellate court in February affirmed dismissal of a$6 billion putative class action against Time Warner Cable overits television rights agreements with Los Angeles sports teams,agreeing with Gibson Dunn arguments that the plaintiffs' claimswere preempted by federal communications laws.

"When you put together the results we've had with a team that isenergetic, enthusiastic, working very hard to understand all thebusiness dynamics at play and is fun to brainstorm with, it's agood combination," Tulumello said. "That's probably not all of it,but it's a lot of what separates us from other firms."

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.